Skip to main content

About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
into a supposed u.s. ally by the george w. bush administration when they were searching for something to call a diplomat i can victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of iuste g cannisters thrown at the people in egypt. the u.s. was neutral, then moved against mubarak. but had mubarak kept control of the military, ultimately it wouldn't have been tear gas, it would have been american tanks and f-16 fighter jets squaring off against the peaceful protest movement america was supporting. in libya now, there's some of that same awkwardness. justin elliott had a piece at salon.com that was helpful and interesting, noting that the george w. bush administration's emb
announcements about u.s. wars, about u.s. military interventions. some of them amounting to small wars, some amounting to very large wars. now that the united states has embarked on its latest new military intervention in libya, i would love to be able to show you the current president's oval office address on the subject, but there isn't one. president obama did make a public statement saturday afternoon that we had started that military intervention in libya, but did so from the confines of a convention center in brazil. eight years to the day that george w. bush stared unsteadily into the camera and announced the iraq invasion, president obama announced his own military intervention, but pointedly declined the opportunity to do it in a way that u.s. presidents usually do. president obama taking all sorts of criticism from the right over the past few days for not cancelling his trade visit to latin america as a result of this military action in libya. and the white house knew that criticism would come. their decision to go ahead with the trip anyway, to forego the chest thumping commander
there are people trying it. from tunisia to hosni mubarak, the great u.s. ally of three decades. to yemen, to worries about al qaeda and extremism in that area of the world. he is supposedly our ally against terrorism. even moammar gadhafi, most americans if they think of him at all think of him as a ridiculous cartoon villain. even he has recently been considered an ostensible american ally. whose planes the american military shot down in 1986. a man whose house ronald reagan shot a missile. even gadhafi was made into a supposed u.s. ally by the george call a diplomatic victory after the fiasco that was the fake weapons of mass destruction in iraq. it is hard enough to figure out how americans can best help out popular uprisings of people that want to determine their own future instead of living under a despot. that is hard enough. how do you figure it out when the despot in question is our despot. when he has enjoyed american support, american seal of approval? that's why there was this collective national stomach turning when we saw images of made in the usa tear gas cannisters thrown
or airplanes. he stressed the u.s. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself. no american troops on the ground, no american planes, no enforcement itself, that's what we know. what we don't know is a lot bigger. joining us now, eugene robinson, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post." thanks for being here. >> good evening, chris. >> what do you make of president obama's remarks on libya today? are we now at war? was that the communication? even coming away from it, i had a hard time answering that question for myself. >> when i heard the president's speech, i thought gee, we might be, and here is why. he said very clearly that as far as he's concerned and the united states is concerned, gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. he forfeited the right to be president of libya, and he set these demands, gadhafi has to stop, he has to withdraw, these are not negotiable and there will be consequences. so that to me says we are going to use force to make gadhafi do what we want him to do. >> and of course, if he doesn't do what we want him to do,
. or remember this, the northern islands, u.s. commonwealth, a helpful map, look, it is a dot. the u.s. government did an investigation into working conditions there, and found that sweatshop workers there were not only working in sweatshop conditions, they were forced into prostitution. they were forced to have abortions. so maybe stuff being manufactured under those conditions, forced abortions, maybe the stuff of corporations shouldn't carry the made in the usa label. maybe they haven't earned that. in the mid 1990s, jack abramoff took on the northern mariana islands as a client and put tim phillips and ralph reed on the case. they got them to lobby their member of congress in favor of forced abortion, forced prostitution sweatshop on the grounds that the chinese laborers were being introduced to jesus while they were there. presumably, that was between the forced abortions and forced prostitution. i asked him about it when we had him on the show in 2009. his answer was essentially, you know, that was a really long time ago. may have been a long time ago. dude still has the same bas
to you at home for staying with us for the next hour as well. the u.s. handed over military operations in libya to nato today, sort of. the president of yemen offered to step down today, sort of. the government of canada was toled today, srt f, and pastte ecuin much larger area around the busted nuclear reactors today, sort of. it was a day of huge headlines, with equally huge devils in the details of all of these big stories. but we're going to start with u.s. politics, where we don't really do details. we tend to like things blunt and simple. case in point. there is a magic word in washington politics. the well earned common wisdom about this word is that if you attach this special magic word to a proposal to something the government could spend money on, doesn't matter how bad an idea it is, how many smart people think it is a stupid thing, if it has this magic word attached to it, it becomes politically invincible, can't be killed. the magic word is defense. and it is well earned common wisdom in washington that any spending that is labeled "defense" is pretty much untouchable spen
a point on that. >> we also have to think about frankly the use of the u.s. military in another country in the middle east. >> another one, in addition to the others. military force is not defense or even defense. it's military force, planes, guns, war ships, ammunition, force with a capital f. as much as our country wants to stop what gadhafi is doing in libya, the pentagon is telling congress the military force options for doing that are not good options. joining us now, nbc chief foreign correspondent richard engel live in the capitol of tripoli. richard, thank you very much for joining us. are you safe and sound out there? >> we're actually very much in the eye of the storm. it is a very surreal situation in tripoli. there's almost an environment like people are pretending the war doesn't happen here, shops are open, people are going to work. the internet is working, phones are up. it is a different reality from rebel held libya. so right in the capitol, there are troops and armors rigging the city. but when you get to the middle of it, it feels very calm. >> in tripoli tonight, sho
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)